Topic: Bush, Warcrimes?

[gpw11]

BUSH! WARCRIMES!

Yeah, yeah, I know.  When I originally viewed the story I was partially tricked into believing it was from a more reputable source, dealt with a more legitimate conference in a more legitimate setting, and...well actually, mattered.  Nevertheless, I'm curious - what do you think about the somewhat constant accusations from certain segments of the "politically active" that Bush is a war criminal?


Edit: Vincent Bugliosi is a clown.

[Ghandi]

Whenever I think of war crimes I think of something Robert McNamara said about World War II:

"LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

[gpw11]

Yeah, that's kind of my thoughts on most war crimes in general (although there are some very legitimate cases).  I personally also think all the cries for Bush to be charged for war crimes is just retarded.  I mean, if you really want to go that route, rally for impeachment (although there's no real point), but war crimes? Good luck.

[Ghandi]

Well, any call for warcrimes against Bush is stupid because he hasn't committed any. What he did was start an unjustified and unsupported war in Iraq. That's not a warcrime, it's just bad judgment, which the Congress went along with. Similarly, he can't be impeached because he hasn't done anything to be impeached. He's just had terrible policy and has been a horrible leader. And I blame the situation partly on the American people for being gullible enough to elect him into office for a second term.

[gpw11]

I totally agree.  I think the "reasons" people throw out there are shit like he allowed torture and "deliberately" mislead congress.  To be honest, I think if you had undeniable and damning evidence of both you could probably push for an impeachment hearing...but obviously no one does.  It also plays a bit loose with what I perceive as some of the facts.  War crimes though....hells no.

[Ghandi]

All talk of warcrimes aside, the fact that this administration blatantly authorized torture absolutely sickens me as an American. As a nation, I can't believe that we aren't outraged enough to do something about it. But I guess we are too worried about how much they are fucking up the economy to care about it (except for those lovely 2% at the top who are getting tax cuts).

/rant

[gpw11]

No, no, no.  It's not the economy, it's just that they aren't real people.




What?

[Ghandi]

Typical Canadian point of view. Elitist bastards with your provinces and your snow and your otters.

[gpw11]

Fuck you, you love otters.

[Cobra951]

Even though the Third Reich represented pure evil, I was a bit put off by some of what went on the Nuremberg trials.  An American soldier, with all the supposed protections of living in a free country doesn't have a real choice when ordered to do something.  Imagine a Nazi soldier.  OK, so let's draw the line at gassing civilians to death en masse.  If you do that, even under orders, burn in hell.  But guards?  Clerks?  Low-ranking officers?  Grunts in general?  WTF were they supposed to do, walk into a firing squad?

War is sanctioned murder.  There can only be real war crimes outside the scope of the enemy that the military is trying to kill and the targets that it's trying to break.  I hate the guy in office with a passion.  Make no mistake about that.  But he is no war criminal.  This is left-slanted politics, not a real story.

[Pugnate]

Even though the Third Reich represented pure evil, I was a bit put off by some of what went on the Nuremberg trials.  An American soldier, with all the supposed protections of living in a free country doesn't have a real choice when ordered to do something.  Imagine a Nazi soldier.  OK, so let's draw the line at gassing civilians to death en masse.  If you do that, even under orders, burn in hell.  But guards?  Clerks?  Low-ranking officers?  Grunts in general?  WTF were they supposed to do, walk into a firing squad?

This is pretty much what I've thought as well.

[Ghandi]

Even though the Third Reich represented pure evil, I was a bit put off by some of what went on the Nuremberg trials.  An American soldier, with all the supposed protections of living in a free country doesn't have a real choice when ordered to do something.  Imagine a Nazi soldier.  OK, so let's draw the line at gassing civilians to death en masse.  If you do that, even under orders, burn in hell.  But guards?  Clerks?  Low-ranking officers?  Grunts in general?  WTF were they supposed to do, walk into a firing squad?

But the point is, American's ordered terrible atrocities against civilians as well. We killed 100,000 civilians in one night by firebombing Japan, and countless more over a period of months. We burned their whole country, intentionally targeting civilians. But that wasn't considered a war crime because we won.

[Cobra951]

You wage war on a people, not a government.  After the Americans nuked 2 of their cities, the doves felt forced to step in and exercise their real power, forcing the hawks--who would have fought to the last man--to surrender to the Americans.  Once they perceived a real threat to the emperor and their way of life, they sprang to action from their former passivity.  To win a war you have to break the will of the people to fight, not simply win a military victory.  Without Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's sacrifice, the death toll of Japanese and allied forces would have been much greater in the long run, and victory would have been spotty, as in anything we've done militarily since.  That's not a war crime.  That's war.

[Ghandi]

Such atrocities nowadays would be labeled as crimes against humanity, not war. You don't firebomb an entire country to break their will to fight, you do it to wipe them out.

I agree with you entirely in theory. But certain cases, from all sides during WWII, aren't "just war". They are, in fact, unjustifyable. The bomb is debatable (although I agree with you on this issue) 

[Cobra951]

I submit to you that it needs doing again.  If we don't break the will of our worst enemies, they will continue to wear us down over the decades.

[Ghandi]

That's ludicrous. Our enemies are entirely different now than they were then, in more ways than one. Perhaps for an enemy like the Japanese in WWII, who were brainwashed and hellbent on our destruction, this mentality may take hold. But many of our enemies now are only our enemies because we have bombed the shit out of them. More force will only solidify their views.

Edit: I've also read about 400 pages of The Thin Red Line today, so my opinion of War thus far is not entirely positive.

[Cobra951]

That's ludicrous. Our enemies are entirely different now than they were then, in more ways than one. Perhaps for an enemy like the Japanese in WWII, who were brainwashed and hellbent on our destruction, this mentality may take hold. But many of our enemies now are only our enemies because we have bombed the shit out of them. More force will only solidify their views.

How exactly are our enemies now different from that?  You can't reason with that.  You can only combat it at the same level in the brain--fear vs rage.  The true power behind Japanese society were scared shitless by the proven prospect of their annihilation.  They pulled the plug not only on the military, but on the belligerent attitude of their people.  Can you conceive of a modern world without Japan as a staunch Western ally and trading partner?  Yet they represented then the same kind of fanatical destructive force we face now.  The difference between a kamikaze and a suicide bomber is a small airplane.  I fucking guarantee you that if the imams and clerics worldwide become convinced they are about to lose everything they hold dear, which is in some very specific and vulnerable places, a dramatic shift in posture would follow.  You can't convince anyone of impending doom without a highly destructive sequence of events.

We can't destroy a determined mortal enemy by pussyfooting around the political minefields.   That enemy includes many more than soldiers in uniform.

[gpw11]

[Ghandi]

How exactly are our enemies now different from that?  You can't reason with that.  You can only combat it at the same level in the brain--fear vs rage.  The true power behind Japanese society were scared shitless by the proven prospect of their annihilation.  They pulled the plug not only on the military, but on the belligerent attitude of their people.  Can you conceive of a modern world without Japan as a staunch Western ally and trading partner?  Yet they represented then the same kind of fanatical destructive force we face now.  The difference between a kamikaze and a suicide bomber is a small airplane.  I fucking guarantee you that if the imams and clerics worldwide become convinced they are about to lose everything they hold dear, which is in some very specific and vulnerable places, a dramatic shift in posture would follow.  You can't convince anyone of impending doom without a highly destructive sequence of events.

We can't destroy a determined mortal enemy by pussyfooting around the political minefields.   That enemy includes many more than soldiers in uniform.

I don't buy it. This is the same mentality that got us mired in the war in Iraq. If our strategy is "bomb now ask questions later" we will be left with a pile of rubble and very few answers. Our world isn't black and white and our enemies aren't stagnant.

The major difference is that our enemy nowadays are not a nation. We are fighting "terror". You can't pinpoint terror to an island in the Pacific. This is not a war against Islam, as many may think, or a war against merely Iraq. It's a war, among other things, of definition. How do you define terror? In World War II, our enemy was clearly defined. Against whom are we now fighting?

[Cobra951]

We did *not* follow this mentality in Iraq when we went in, and we're still not.  We went in with a surgical approach, and that can't work past a victory against the government and the military.  Following the same approach would mean if snipers are holed up in an urban neighborhood, you fucking level it.  Rubble on rubble.  Need security?  Demolish square blocks around whatever you want to protect, bulldoze the debris, then pave it over.  Leave no place to hide for anyone without clearance.  We are not doing that.  If we were on a scorched-earth campaign, why do rogue provinces under hostile-warlord control still exist?

You can pinpoint terror to an ideology.  Attacking that ideology where it lives is feasible.  We didn't eliminate the threat from fanatical Japanese by killing every one of them.  We engaged in attitude readjustment.  The problem isn't the people on the streets of Iraq or wherever chanting and shaking their fists.  They can do that till doomsday, and we'll be fine.  The problem is the powerful organizations giving them AK's, bombs, travel papers, money and targets.  What they care about is what we have to hold hostage.

[gpw11]

Nyac died today


A sad day for the world.   

[Ghandi]

We did *not* follow this mentality in Iraq when we went in, and we're still not.  We went in with a surgical approach, and that can't work past a victory against the government and the military.  Following the same approach would mean if snipers are holed up in an urban neighborhood, you fucking level it.  Rubble on rubble.  Need security?  Demolish square blocks around whatever you want to protect, bulldoze the debris, then pave it over.  Leave no place to hide for anyone without clearance.  We are not doing that.  If we were on a scorched-earth campaign, why do rogue provinces under hostile-warlord control still exist?

You can pinpoint terror to an ideology.  Attacking that ideology where it lives is feasible.  We didn't eliminate the threat from fanatical Japanese by killing every one of them.  We engaged in attitude readjustment.  The problem isn't the people on the streets of Iraq or wherever chanting and shaking their fists.  They can do that till doomsday, and we'll be fine.  The problem is the powerful organizations giving them AK's, bombs, travel papers, money and targets.  What they care about is what we have to hold hostage.

But my point is, when we were debating entering into war with Iraq (If you call it a debate - it wasn't), we went in with the mentality that military action was the only realistic option. Anything else was viewed as weak. Yes, as you say, we "engaged in attitude readjustment". We readjusted to the propaganda that was being directed at us.

The major failure of this administration has been the indoctrination of a "weak vs. strong" mentality, particularly concerning the military. Ironically, the invasion of Iraq has made us weaker, not stronger. Our enemies have gained strength. Iran has gotten stronger because of it, Al Qaeda is stronger now because of it. It has distracted us from Bin Laden. This attitude has made us weaker.

We need leadership based upon a realistic understanding of the situation on the ground, not upon who is most willing to strike first.

[Cobra951]

Don't misunderstand me.  If you track what I've posted on this stupid, unnecessary Iraq war back till just before it started, you'll see that I was always against it.  Saddam would have been much cheaper to buy than he was to kill, and the vacuum left behind by his removal we get to fill and finance too.

So, granted, we should have never gone in.  But now we *are* in, and we can't just let them kill us.  We have to fight, and fight to win.

The terrorist problem is something else entirely.  (I never understood going into Iraq in that context.)  It has splashed over into it now, but getting full control of Iraq, even if that's possible, would not put a dent on terrorism.  That has to be handled separately.

[Ghandi]

So, granted, we should have never gone in.  But now we *are* in, and we can't just let them kill us.  We have to fight, and fight to win.

We are pumping over $10 million a month into Iraq, to a country that has a $72 million surplus. Our soldiers are dying over there. The war has made us less safe.

I could take your argument - that exact quote - and apply it to Vietnam.

Our fight was never Iraq. Our fight is Bin Laden. Our fight is Al Qaeda. I reject any of the absurd notions that redeploying our troops constitutes "defeat". Let the Iraqis have their civil war. We have more important matters to take care of. I'm tired of Bush's war. I'm tired of America's Ignorance. We're smarter than this.